219 SCRA 115 Civil Law Torts and Damages Breach of promise to Marry Article 21 of the

Civil Code

In August 1986, while working as a waitress in Dagupan City, Pangasinan, Marilou Gonzales, then
21 years old, met Gashem Shookat Baksh, a 29 year old exchange student from Iran who was
studying medicine in Dagupan. The two got really close and intimate. On Marilous account, she
said that Gashem later offered to marry her at the end of the semester. Marilou then introduced
Gashem to her parents where they expressed their intention to get married. Marilous parents then
started inviting sponsors and relatives to the wedding. They even started looking for animals to
slaughter for the occasion.

Meanwhile, Marilou started living with Gashem in his apartment where they had sexual
intercourse. But in no time, their relationship went sour as Gashem began maltreating Marilou.
Gashem eventually revoked his promise of marrying Marilou and he told her that he is already
married to someone in Bacolod City. So Marilou went home and later sued Gashem for damages.

The trial court ruled in favor of Marilou and awarded her P20k in moral damages. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

On appeal, Gashem averred that he never proposed marriage to Marilou and that he cannot be
adjudged to have violated Filipino customs and traditions since he, being an Iranian, was not
familiar with Filipino customs and traditions.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct.

HELD: Yes. Gashem is liable to pay for damages in favor of Marilou not really because of his
breach of promise to marry her but based on Article 21 of the Civil Code which provides:

Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong per se. In this case, it is the deceit and
fraud employed by Gashem that constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Civil Code. His
promise of marrying Marilou was a deceitful scheme to lure her into sexual congress. As found by
the trial court, Marilou was not a woman of loose morals. She was a virgin before she met
Gashem. She would not have surrendered herself to Gashem had Gashem not promised to marry
her. Gashems blatant disregard of Filipino traditions on marriage and on the reputation of
Filipinas is contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy. As a foreigner who is enjoying
the hospitality of our country and even taking advantage of the opportunity to study here he is
expected to respect our traditions. Any act contrary will render him liable under Article 21 of the
Civil Code.

The Supreme Court also elucidated that Article 21 was meant to expand the concepts of torts and
quasi delict. It is meant to cover situations such as this case where the breach complained of is not
strictly covered by existing laws. It was meant as a legal remedy for the untold number of moral
wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the
statute books such as the absence of a law penalizing a the breach of promise to marry.

The Supreme Court however agreed with legal luminaries that if the promise to marry was made
and there was carnal knowledge because of it, then moral damages may be recovered (presence of
moral or criminal seduction), Except if there was mutual lust; or if expenses were made because of
the promise (expenses for the wedding), then actual damages may be recovered.